🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EtmdncCQdcWpfR_UnZ2dnUVZ8jqWnZ2d@westnet.com.au>,
 "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

> George W Frost wrote:
> > "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> > news:jrmdnXta9_XcGR_UnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> >> Doug Jewell wrote:
> >>> mmal380vrx@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> i dont know why everyone is so against it i guess people who are
> >>>> against it are into kiddy porn or other types of dirty stuff on the
> >>>> internet
> >>> If it was only about kiddy porn then I'd possibly support it
> >>> too,
> >>
> >> I wouldn't.
> >> If they have a know list of kiddie-porn sites that they are going to
> >> block, why not allow them to be accessed *BUT MONITOR WHO DOES SO* in
> >> order to gather evidence for prosecution? One the monitoring raises
> >> a flag the cops get a warrant to confiscate the user's PC for
> >> examination. Getting these sick fucks off the street is more effective 
> >> than
> >> blocking one means of accessing their sick material and forcing them
> >> underground. --
> >> Kwyj.
> >>
> >
> > Sounds good in theory, but it would bring about legal nightmares, with
> > claims of entrapment etc, which I don't think there are laws like
> > that in OZ,
> 
> Correct. There are no laws regarding entrapment here. 

Rubbish.

> Even if there were, 
> they wouldn't apply unless the police emailed people a link to a kiddie porn 
> site, inviting people to view it.
> Simply allowing perverts to give in to their sick desires by themselves is 
> not even close to entrapment.
> 
> > but it would open up a lot, seeing that there has been
> > claims of judges, magistrates, coppers, priests, bishops, company
> > managers, etc. all having child porn charges against them, one of
> > them would devise a way out
> 
> It would just be another method for gathering evidence. Not much that can be 
> done to devise your way out of that.
> 
> > I seem to recall that it has been announced a while ago, that the
> > coppers already monitor known sites to bring about charges against
> > contributors of those sites
> 
> So how is that different to what I suggested?
> 
> > That seems to be the only way the coppers can apprehend them, apart
> > from word of mouth.